Opportunism, and the Collapse of the Second International

Written:Written at the end of 1915Published:First published inProletarshay RevotutsiaNo. 5 (28), 1924.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[197[4]],

      Moscow,Volume 21,

      pages438-454.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandR. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2003

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

Itis instructive to compare the attitudes of the various classes and
      parties towards the collapse of the International, which has been revealed
      by the 1914-15 war. On one hand, the bourgeoisie extols to the sky those
      socialists who have expressed themselves in favour of “defending the
      fatherland”, i.e., in favour of the war and of aiding the
      bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie’s more outspoken or
      less diplomatic representatives are expressing malicious joy over the
      collapse of the International, the collapse of the
      “illusions” of socialism. Among socialists who are
      “defending the fatherland” there are also two shades: the
      “extremists” like the Germans W. Kolb and W. Heine, who admit
      the collapse of the International, for which they blame the
      “revolutionary illusions”; these are out to restore astill
      moreopportunist International. In practice, however they agree with
      the “moderates”, the cautious socialist “defenders of
      the fatherland”, such as Kautsky, Renaudel, and Vandervelde, who
      stubbornly deny that the International has collapsed, consider it merely
      suspended temporarily, and defend the Second International’s
      viability and right to exist. Revolutionary Social-Democrats in the
      various countries recognise the collapse of the Second International and
      the need to create a Third International.

Todecide who is right, let us examine an historic document which bears
    upon the present war, and carries the unanimous and official signatures ofallsocialist parties in the world. That document is theBasle
    Manifestoof 1912. Noteworthy enough, no socialist would, in theory,
    dare deny the need for a concretely historical analysis of every war.Today, however, none but the “Left” Social-Democrats, who are
    but few in number, would be so bold as to publicly and definitely repudiate
    the Basle Manifesto, or declare it erroneous, or analyse it carefully,
    comparing its decisions with the conduct of the socialists after the
    outbreak of the war.

Whyis that so? It is because the Basle Manifesto ruthlessly exposes the
    wrong reasoning and conduct of the majority of official socialists. There isnot a single wordin this Manifesto on either the “defence of
    the fatherland” or the difference between a war of aggression and a war
    of defence!Not a syllableon a subject the official S.D. leaders
    both in Germany and in the Quadruple Entente have been talking and
    vociferating about most. In a perfectly clear, precise, and definite manner,
    the Basle Manifesto analyses the concrete clashes of interests which led
    towards war in 1912 and brought about war in 1914. The Manifesto says that
    these are clashes arising on the basis of “capitalist
    imperialism”, clashes between Austria and Russia for domination over
    the Balkans, clashes between Britain, France, and Germany over their
    “policies of conquest in Asia Minor” (the policies ofall of
    them!), clashes between Austria and Italy over their attempt to
    “draw Albania into their sphere of influence”, subject her to
    their “rule”, and clashes between Britain and Germany because of
    their mutual “antagonism”, and further, because of
    “tsarism’s attempts to grab Armenia, Constantinople,
    etc.” It will be seen that this applies in full to the present war. The
    undisguised predatory, imperialist and reactionary character of this war,
    which is being waged for the enslavement of nations, is most clearly
    recognised in the Manifesto, which draws the necessary conclusion that war
    “cannot be justified on the slightest pretext of being in the least in
    the interests of the people”, that war is prepared “for the sake
    of the profits of capitalists and ambitions of dynasties”, and that on
    the part of the workers it would be “a crime to fire at one
    another”.

Thesepropositions contain the fundamentals for an understanding of the
    radical distinction between two great historical periods. One was the period
    between 1789 and 1871, when, in most cases, wars in Europe were indubitably
    connected with themost important“interests of the
    people”, namely, a powerful bourgeois-progressive movement fornational liberation which involved millions of people, with the destruction
    of feudalism, absolutism, and foreign oppression. It was on this basis alone
    that there arose the concept of “defence of the fatherland”,
    defence of a bourgeois nation that is liberating itself from
    medievalism. Only in this sense did socialists recognise “defence of
    the fatherland”. Even today it must be recognisedin this
    sense; for instance, the defence of Persia or China against Russia or
    Britain, of Turkey against Germany or Russia, of Albania against Austria and
    Italy, etc.

The1914-15 war, as clearly expressed in the Basle Manifesto, pertains to
    an entirely different historical period and is of an entirely different
    character. This is a war among predators for division of the loot, for the
    enslavement of other countries. Victory for Russia, Britain, and France
    means the strangulation of Armenia, Asia Minor, etc.—this isstatedin the Basle Manifesto. Germany’s victory means the
    strangulation of Asia Minor, Serbia, Albania, etc. This isstatedin the selfsame Manifesto, and has been recognised by all socialists! All
    phrases about a war of defence or about the defence of the fatherland by the
    Great Powers (i.e., the great predators), who are fighting for world
    domination, markets and “spheres of influence”, and the
    enslavement of nations, are false, meaningless and hypocritical! It is not
    surprising that “socialists” who are in favour of defending the
    fatherlandare afraidto recall or to exactly quote the Basle
    Manifesto, for itexposestheir hypocrisy. The Basle Manifesto
    proves that socialists who stand for the “defence of the
    fatherland” in the 1914-15 war are socialists only in word and
    chauvinists in deed. They are social-chauvinists.

Recognitionof this war as connected with national liberation leads to
    one line of socialist tactics; recognition of a war as imperialist,
    predatory and aggressive, leads to another line. The latter has been clearly
    defined in the Basle Manifesto. The war, it says, will evoke an
    “economic and political crisis”, which, it continues, must be
    “utilised” to “hasten the collapse of the rule of
    capital”. These wordsrecognisethat social revolution isripe, that it ispossible, that it isapproachingin connection with the war. The “ruling classes” are afraid of a
    “proletarian revolution”, says the Manifesto, quoting the
    example of theParis Communeandof 1905, i.e., the examples of revolutions, strikes, and civil war. It
    is a lie for anybody to say that the socialists “have not
    discussed”, or “have not decided” the question of their
    attitude towards the war. The Basle Manifestohas decidedthis
    question; it has mapped out the line of tactics—that of proletarian
    revolutionary action and civil war.

Itwould be erroneous to think that the Basle Manifesto is a piece of
    empty declamation, a bureaucratic phrase, a none-too-serious threat. Those
    whom the Manifesto exposes are prepared to say such things. But that is not
    the truth! The Basle Manifesto sums up the vast amount of propaganda and
    agitation material of the entire epoch of the Second International, namely,
    the period between 1889 and 1914. This Manifestosummarises,
    without any exaggeration,millions upon millionsof leaflets, press
    articles, books, and speeches by socialists of all lands. To declare this
    Manifesto erroneous means declaring the entire Second International
    erroneous, the work done in decades and decades by all Social-Democratic
    parties. To brush aside the Basle Manifesto means brushing aside the entire
    history of socialism. The Basle Manifesto says nothingunusualorout of the ordinary.It provides only and exclusively thatwhichenabled the socialiststo lead the
    masses—recognition of “peaceful” work aspreparationfor a proletarian revolution. The Basle Manifesto
    repeated what Guesde said at the 1899 Congress, where he ridiculed
    socialists’ ministerialism manifesting itselfin the eventof
    a war for markets, “brigandages capitalistes” (En
    garde!pp. 175-76), or what Kautsky said in 1909, in his pamphletDer Weg zur Macht, in which he spoke of the end of the
    “peaceful epoch” and the advent of an epoch of wars, revolutions,
    and the proletariat’s struggle for power.

TheBasle Manifesto incontestably proves the complete betrayal of
    socialism by those socialists who voted for war credits; joined governments,
    and recognised the defence of the fatherland in 1914-15. This betrayal is
    undeniahle. It will be denied by hypocrites alone. The only question is: how
    is itto be explained.

Itwould be unscientific, absurd and ridiculous to reduce the question topersonalities, to refer toKautsky,Guesde,Plekhanov(and
    say: “even” such persons!). That would be awretched
    subterfuge. Any serious explanation calls, in the first place, for aneconomicanalysis of the significance of present-day politics, then
    for an analysis of their fundamentalideas, and, finally, for a
    study of the historictrendswithin socialism.

Whatis theeconomicimplication of “defence of the
    fatherland” in the 1914–15 war? The answer to this question has been
    given in the Basle Manifesto. The war is being fought by all the Great
    Powers for the purpose of plunder, carving up the world, acquiring markets,
    and enslaving nations. To the bourgeoisie it brings higher profits; to a
    thin crust of the labour bureaucracy and aristocracy, and also to the petty
    bourgeoisie (the intelligentsia, etc.) which “travels” with the
    working-class movement, it promisesmorselsof those profits. The
    economic basis of “social-chauvinism” (this term being more
    precise than the term social-patriotism, as the latter embellishes the evil)
    and of opportunism is the same, namely, an alliance between an insignificant
    section at the “top” of the labour movement, and its
    “own” national bourgeoisie, directedagainstthe masses
    of the proletariat, an alliance between theservantsof the
    bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, directed against theclassthat is
    exploited by the bourgeoisie. Social-chauvinism is a consummated
    opportunism.

Social-chauvinismand opportunism are the same in their political
    essence; class collaboration, repudiation of the proletarian dictatorship,
    rejection of revolutionary action, obeisance to bourgeois legality,
    non-confidence in the proletariat, and confidence in the bourgeoisie. The
    political ideas are identical, and so is the political content of their
    tactics. Social-chauvinism is the direct continuation and consummation of
    Millerandism, Bernsteinism, and British liberal-labour policies, their sum,
    their total, their highest achievement.

Throughoutthe entire period between 1889 and 1914, two lines in
    socialism—the opportunist and the revolutionary—are to be
    seen. Today there are also two lines in socialism. Let us not follow the
    method of referring topersons, which is practised by the bourgeois
    and opportunist liars, and let us take thetrendsto be seen in a
    number of countries. Let us take ten European countries:Germany, Britain,
    Russia, Italy, Holland, Sweden, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Belgium and
    France. In the first eight countries, the division into the opportunist and
    revolutionarytrendscoincides with the division into
    social-chauvinists and revolutionary internationalists. The main nuclei of
    social-chauvinism in the social and political sense are:Sozialistische
    Monatshefteand Co. in Germany; the Fabians and the Labour Party in
    Britain (the Independent Labour Party entered in ablocwith both,
    the influence of social-chauvinism in the latter being considerably stronger
    than in the British Socialist Party, in which about three-sevenths are
    internationalists, namely, 66 to 84);Nasha Zaryaand the
    Organising Committee (as well asNashe Dyelo) in Russia;
    Bissolati’s party in Italy; Troelstra’s party in Holland;
    Branting and Co. in Sweden; the
“Shiroki”[21]in Bulgaria;
    Greulich and “his”
people[1]in Switzerland. It is from
    revolutionary Social-Democrats inallthese countries that a more
    or less sharp protest has emanated against social-chauvinism. Two countries
    out of the ten are the exception, but even there internationalists areweak, but not absent; the facts are rather unknown (Vaillant has
    admitted having received letters from internationalists, which he did not
    publish) than non-existent.

Social-chauvinismis a consummated opportunism. That is beyond doubt. The
    alliance with the bourgeoisie used to be ideological and secret. It is now
    public and unseemly. Social-chauvinism draws its strength from nowhere else
    but this alliance with the bourgeoisie and the General Staffs. It is a
    falsehood for anybody (including Kautsky) to say that the
    “masses” of proletarians have turned towards chauvinism;nowherehave the masses been asked (with the exception, perhaps, of
    Italy, where a discussion went on for nine months prior to the declaration
    of war, and where the masses also wereagainstthe Bissolati
    party). The masses were dumbfounded, panic-stricken, disunited, and crushed
    by the state of martial law. The free vote was a privilege of the leadersalone—and they votedforthe bourgeoisie and against
    the proletariat! It is ridiculous and monstrous to consider opportunism aninner-party phenomenon! AllMarxists in Germany, France, and other
    countries have always stated and insisted that opportunism is a
    manifestation of the bourgeoisie’s influence over the proletariat;
    that it is a bourgeois labour policy, an alliance between an insignificant
    section of near-proletarian elements and the bourgeoisie. Having for decades
    to mature in conditions of “peaceful” capitalism, opportunism was
    so mature by 1914-15 that it proved an open ally of the bourgeoisie. Unity
    with opportunism means unity between the proletariat and its national
    bourgeoisie, i.e., submission to the latter, a split in the international
    revolutionary working class. We do not say that an immediate split with the
    opportunists in all countries is desirable, or even possible at present; we
    do say that such a split has come to a head, that it has become inevitable,
    is progressive in nature, and necessary to the revolutionary struggle of the
    proletariat, and that history, having turned away from
    “peaceful” capitalism towards imperialism, has thereby turned
    towards such a split.Volentem ducunt fata,nolentem
    trahunt.[2]

Sincethe onset of the war, the bourgeoisie of all countries, the
    belligerents in the first place, have united in lauding socialists who
    recognise the “defence of the fatherland”, i.e., the defence of
    the bourgeoisie’s predatory interests in the imperialist war,against the proletariat.See how this basic interest of the
    international bourgeoisie is making its way into the socialist parties, into
    the working-class movement, to find expression there! The example of Germany
    is particularly instructive in this respect, since the epoch of the Second
    International saw the growth of the greatest party in that country, butthe very same thingis to be seen in other countries, with only
    minor variations in form, aspect and outward appearance.

Inits issue of April 1915,Preussische Jahrbücher, a
    conservative German journal, published an article by aSocial-Democrat, a member of the Social-Democratic Party, who
    concealed his identity behind the pseudonym of Monitor. This opportunist
    blurted out the truth regarding thesubstanceof the policy pursued
    by theentireworld bourgeoisie towards the working-class movement
    of the twentieth century.The latter can neither be brushed aside nor
    suppressed by brute force, he says. It must be demoralised from within, bybuyingits top section. It was exactly in this manner that the
    Anglo-French bourgeoisie has been acting for decades, by buying up the
    trade-union leaders, the Millerands, the Briands and Co. It is in this
    manner that the German bourgeoisie is now acting. The Social-Democratic
    Party’s behaviour, Monitor says to (and in essencein the name
    of) the bourgeoisie, is “irreproachable” in the present war
    (i.e., it is irreproachablyservingthe bourgeoisie against the
    proletariat). The process of the transformation” of the
    Social-Democratic Party into a national liberal-labour party is proceeding
    excellently. It would, however, bedangerousto the bourgeoisie,
    Monitor adds, if the partywere to turn to the right; “it
    must retain the character of a workers’ party with socialist
    ideals. On the day it gives that up, a new party will arise to take up the
    rejected programme, giving it a still more radical formu
    lation” (Preussische Jahrbücher, 1915, No. 4,
    pp. 50-51).

Thesewords openly express that which the bourgeoisie has always and
    everywhere done covertly. “Radical”wordsareneededfor the masses to believe in. The opportunists are prepared
    to reiterate them hypocritically.Suchparties as the
    Social-Democratic parties of the Second International used to be are useful
    and necessary to the opportunists because they engendered the
    socialists’defenceof the bourgeoisie during the 1914-15
    crisis. Exactly the same kind of policy as that of the German Monitor is
    being pursued by the Fabians and the liberal trade-union leaders in Britain,
    and the opportunists and the Jaurèsists in France. Monitor is an
    outspoken and cynical opportunist. Then there is another shade, a covert or
    “honest” opportunist (Engels was right when he once said that the
    “honest” opportunists are the most dangerous to the working-class
    movement). Kautsky is an example of such an opportunist.

InDie Neue ZeitNo. 9, of November 26, 1915, he wrote that the
    majority of the official party was violating its programme (Kautsky himself
    upheld the policy of the majority for a whole year after the outbreak of the
    war, justifying the “defence of the
    fatherland” lie!). “Opposition to themajority is
    growing,” he said (p. 272). (“Die Opposition gegen die
    Mehrheit im Wachsen ist.) The masses are “in
    opposition” (oppositionell). “Nach dem Kriege[nurnachdem Kriege?] . . .werden die
    Klassengegensätze sich so verschärfen,dass der
    Radikalismus in den Massen die Oberhand gewinnt” (p. 272).Es
    “droht uns nach dem Kriege[nurnachdem
    Kriege?] . . .die Flucht der radikalen Elemente aus der Partei
    und ihr Zustrom zu einer Richtung antiparlamentarischer[??soll
    heissen: ausserparlamentarischer]Massenaktionen. . . . So
    zerfällt unsere Partei in zwei Extreme, die nichts Gemeinsames
    haben.”[3]

Kautskywants to represent the golden mean, and to reconcile the
    “two extremes” which “have nothing in common”!
    Today (sixteen months after the outbreak of war) he admits that the
    masses are revolutionary. Condemning in the same breath revolutionary
    action, which he calls “Abenteuer” “in
    den
    Strassen”[4](p. 272), Kautsky wants to
    “reconcile” the revolutionary masses with the opportunist
    leaders, who have “nothing in common” with them—but on
    what basis? On the basis of mere words! On the basis of
    “Left-wing” words of the “Left-wing” minority in the
    Reichtag! Let the minority, like Kautsky, condemn revolutionaryaction, calling itadventurism, but it must feed the
    masses with Left-wingwords.Then there will be peace in the Party,
    unity with the Südekums, Legiens, Davids, and Monitors!

Butthat is Monitor’s selfsame programme in its entirety, a
    programme of the bourgeoisie, only expressed in dulcet tones and in honeyed
    phrases! The same programme was carried out by Wurm as well, when at the
    session of the Social-Democratic group in the Reichstag, March 18, 1915,
    “er die Fraktion ‘warnte’,den Bogen zu
    überspannen;in den Arbeitermassen wachse die Opposition
    gegen die Fraktionstaktik;es gelte,beim marxistischen
    Zentrum zu verharren” (Klassenkampf gegen den Krieg! Material
    zum “Fall Liebknecht”. Als Manuskript gedruckt,S. 67).[5]

Letus note the acknowledgement, on behalf of the “Marxist
    Centre” (including Kautsky), that the masses were in a revolutionary
    temper! This was March 18, 1915!Eight and a half months later, on
    November 26, 1915, Kautsky again proposed that the revolutionary masses be
    appeased with Left phrases!

Kautsky’sopportunism differs from Monitor’s only in the
    wording, in shades, and the methods of achieving thesameend:preservationof the opportunists’ influence (i.e., the
    bourgeoisie’s) over the masses, preservation of the
    proletariat’ssubmissionto the opportunists (i.e.,the
    bourgeoisie)! Pannekoek and Gorter have very properly dubbed
    Kautsky’s stand “passive radicalism”. (It isverbiage, to quote the French who have had occasion to make a
    thorough study ofthisvariety of revolutionism, from their
    “home-made” models!) I would rather prefer to call it covert,
    timid, saccharine and hypocritical opportunism.

Insubstance, the two trends in Social-Democracy now disagree, not in
    words or in phrases. When it comes to the art of blending “defence of
    the fatherland” (i.e., defence of bourgeois plundering) with phrases on
    socialism, internationalism, freedom for the peoples, etc., Vandervelde,
    Renaudel, Sembat, Hyndman, Henderson, and Lloyd George are in no wise
    inferior to Legien, Südekum, Kautsky, or Haase! The actual difference
    begins with a complete rejection of defence of the fatherland in the present
    war, and with acceptance of revolutionary action in connection with the war,duringandafterit. In this question, the only serious
    and business-like one, Kautsky is at one with Kolb and Heine.

Comparethe Fabians in Britain and the Kautskyites in Germany. The former
    are almost liberals, who have never recognised Marxism. Engels wrote of the
    Fabians onJanuary 18,
1893:[6]“A gang of place hunters, shrewd enough
    to understand the inevitability of the social revolution, but totally
    unwilling to entrust this gigantic work to the immature proletariat
    alone. . . . Their fundamental principle is fear of
    revolution....” And on November 11, 1893, he wrote: “Haughty
    bourgeois, benevolently descending to the proletariat to liberate it from
    above, if only it is willing to understand that such a raw, uneducated mass
    cannot liberate itself, and can attain nothing without the charity of those
    clever attorneys, litterateurs, and sentimental
females.”[22]How far from these
    the Kautskyites seem to be in their “theory”! In practice, however, in
    their attitude towards the war, they arequite identical! This is
    convincing proof of how the Marxism of the Kautskyites has withered, turned
    into a dead letter, a piece of cant.

Thefollowing instances will reveal the kind of obvious sophisms used by
    the Kautskyites since the outbreak of war, to refute the tactics of
    revolutionary proletarian action, as unanimously adopted by the socialists
    in Basle. Kautsky advanced his theory of “ultra-imperialism”. By
    this he meant the substitution of “joint exploitation of the world by
    internationally united finance capital, for the struggle of capital of some
    nations against that of other countries” (Die Neue ZeitNo. 5,
    April 30, 1915, p. 144). At the same time, Kautsky himself added: “Can
    such a new phase of capitalism be at all achieved? Sufficient premises are
    still lacking to enable us to answer this question!” On the ground that
    a new phase is “conceivable”, though he himself lacks the
    courage even to declare it “achievable”, he now rejects the
    revolutionary tasks of the proletariat at a time when the phase of crisis
    and war has obviously arrived! Revolutionary action is rejected by the
    selfsame leader of the Second lnternational who, in 1909, wrote a book
    entitledDer Weg zur Macht.Translated into almost all the
    principal European languages, the book revealed theconnectionbetween the impending war and the revolution, and proved that
    “revolution cannot be premature”!

In1909, Kautsky proved that the epock of
    “peaceful” capitalism had passed, and that the epoch of wars and
    revolutions was at hand. In 1912, the Basle Manifesto made this view the
    basis of the entire tactic of the world socialistparties. In 1914 war came,
    followed by the “economic and political crisis” foreseen at
    Stuttgart and Basle. At this juncture Kautsky invented theoretical
    “subterfuges” to be used against revolutionary tactics!

Axelrodhas advanced the same ideas, only clothed in a phraseology a
    little more to the “Left”. He writes in free Switzerland, and it
    is his desire to exert an influence on Russian revolutionary workers. In his
    pamphlet,Die Krise und die Aufgaben der internationalen
    Sozialdemokratie, Zurich, 1915, we find a discovery that is so pleasing
    to the opportunists and the bourgeois of the whole world, namely, that
    “das Internationalisierungsproblem der Arbeiterbewegung ist mit
    der Frage der Revolutionisierung unserer Kampfesformen und Methoden nicht
    identisch” (p. 37) and that “der Schwerpunkt des
    Internationalisierungsproblems der proletarischen Befreiungsbewegung liegt
    in der weiteren Entwicklung und Internationalisierung eben jener
    Alltagspraxis[p. 40] . . . beispielsweisemüssen die
    Arbeiterschutz und Versicherungsgesetzgebung . . . zum Objekt ihrer[der Arbeiter] internationalenAktionen und Organisationen
    werden”
(p. 39).[7]

Itgoes without saying that such “internationalism” has the
    full approval, not only of the Südekums, Legiens and Hyndmans, together
    with the Vanderveldes, but also of the Lloyd Georges, Naumanns and Briands!
    Axelrod defends Kautsky’s “internationalism” without even
    quoting or analysing any of the latter’s arguments for defence of the
    fatherland. Like the Francophile social-chauvinists, Axelrod is even afraid
    to mention that it is revolutionary tactics that the Basle Manifesto speaks
    of. Against the future—the uncertain and unknown future—Axelrod
    is prepared to advance the most Left-wing and blatantly revolutionary
    phrases, such as saying that the future International will meet,entgegentreten wird(den Regierungen im Falle der

    Kriegsgefahr)mit der Entfachung eines rewlutionäiren
    Sturmes. ...Einleitung der sozialistischen Revolution”
(p. 14).[8]No joking here! When, however, it is a matter of
    applying revolutionary tactics right now, during the present crisis, Axelrod
    saysganz à la
Kautsky[9]:

“Revolutionäre
    Massenaktionen”—such tactics “hätte noch
    eine gewisse Berechtigung,wenn wir unmittelbar am Vorabend der
    sozialen Revolution ständen,ähnlich wie es etwa in
    Russland seit den Studentendemonstrationen des Jahres 1901 cler Fall
    war,die das Herannahen entscheidender Kämpfe gegen den
    Absolutismus
ankündigten”[10](pp. 40-41), and then he
    fulminates against the “Utopien”,
    “Bakunismus”, quite in the spirit of Kolb, Heine,
    Südekum, and Legien. The example of Russia exposes Axelrod most
    strikingly. Four years elapsed between 1901 and 1905, and nobody could
    guarantee, in 1901, that the revolution in Russia (the first revolution
    against absolutism) would take place four years later. Prior to the social
    revolution, Europe is in exactly the same situation. Nobody can tell whether
    the first revolution of this kind will come about in four years. That a
    revolutionary situation, however,actually existsis a fact that
    was predicted in 1912 and became a reality in 1914. The 1914 demonstrations
    of workers and starving citizens in Russia and Germany also undoubtedly
    “ankündigen das Herannahen entscheidender
    Kämpfe”.[11]It is the bounden duty of socialists to support
    and develop such demonstrations and every kind of “revolutionary mass
    action” (economic and political strikes, unrest among the troops, right
    up to insurrection and civil war); furnish them with clear slogans; create
    an underground organisation and publish underground literature, without
    which the massescannotbe called upon to rise up in revolution;
    help them get a clear understanding of the revolution,and organise for
    it. It is in this way that the Social-Democrats acted in Russia in 1901, on
    the eve (“am Vorabend”) of the bourgeois revolution
    which began in 1905, but has not ended even in 1915. In the very sameway,
    the Social-Democrats are obliged to act in Europe in 1914-15 “am
    Vorabend der sozialistischen Revolution”. Revolutions are never
    born ready-made; they do not spring out of Jupiter’s head; they do not
    kindle at once. They are always preceded by a process of unrest, crises,
    movements, revolts, thebeginningsof revolution, the latternot alwaysdeveloping to the very end (if, for instance, the
    revolutionary class is not strong enough). Axelrod invents pretexts so as to
    distract Social-Democrats from theirdutyof helping develop the
    revolutionary movements burgeoning within the existing revolutionary
    situation. Axelrod defends the tactics of David and the Fabians, while
    masking his own opportunism with Left-wing phrases.

“DenWeltkrieg in einen Bürgerkrieg umwandeln zu wollen
    wäre Wahnsinn
gewesen,”[12]writes David, leader of the
    opportunists (Die Sozialdemokratie im
Weltkrieg,[13]Berlin, 1915,
    p. 172), in objecting to the manifesto of the Central Committee of our
    Party, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, which was published on
    November 1, 1914. The manifesto advanced the civil war slogan, adding:
    “Wie gross die Schwierigkeiten dieser Umwandlung zur gegebenen
    Zeit auch sein mögen—die Sozialisten werden niemals
    ablehnen,die Vorarbeiten in der bezeichneten Richtungsystematisch, unbeugsam,und energisch auszuführen,falls
    der Krieg zur Tatsache geworden
ist.”[14](Quoted by David, p. 171.) It
    is noteworthy that a month before David’s book appeared (May 1, 1915),
    our Party published (inSotsial-DemokratNo. 40, March 29)
    resolutions on the war, which advocate systematic “steps towards
    turning the present imperialist war into a civil war”, these steps
    being defined inthe following way: (1) refusal to vote for war credits,
    etc.; (2) rejection of
“Burgfrieden”[15];

(3) formation of
    an underground organisation; (4) support for fraternisation by the men in
    the trenches; (5) support for every kind of revolutionary mass action by the
    proletariat in general.

Obrave David! In 1912 he did not think it “madness” to refer
    to the example of the Paris Commune. In 1914, however, he was echoing the
    bourgeois outcry of “madness”.

Plekhanov,a typical representative of the social-chauvinists of the
    Quadruple Entente, has given an appraisal of revolutionary tactics, which is
    fully in accord with David’s. He has called the idea
on[16]...

to wit, theVorabend[17]of the social revolution, from which a period
    of four years or more may elapse before theentscheidende
    Kämpfe.[18]These are, in fact, the first
    beginnings—weak as yet, but beginnings, nevertheless—of the
    “proletarian revolution” which the Basle resolution spoke of and
    which willneverbecome strong suddenly, but will inevitably pass
    through the stages of relativelyweakbeginnings.

Supportfor and the development, extension and intensification of
    revolutionary mass action and the revolutionary movement; the creation of an
    illegal organisation for propaganda and agitation in this direction, so as
    to help the masses understand the movement and its tasks, methods and
    aims—these are the two points that any practical programme of
    Social-Democratic activity in the present war must inevitably boil down
    to. All the rest is opportunist and counter-revolutionary phrases, no matter
    what Leftist, pseudo-Marxist and pacifist contortions those phrases may be
    disguised with.

Wheneverexclamations like the following are made in protest to
    us—all this in the usual fashion of the diehards in the Second
    International: “O those ‘Russian’
    methods!” (“Die russische Taktik”—Kap. VIII
    bei
David),[19]we replymerely by referring to the facts. On
    October 30, 1915, several hundred women (einiger Nundert)
    demonstrated in front of theParteivorstand, and sent it the
    following message through a deputation: “Die Verbreitung vonunzensierten Flugblättern und Druckschriftenund die Abhaltungnicht genehmigter Versammlungenwäre bei dem grossen
    Organisationsapparat heute leichter möglich als zur Zeit des
    Sozialistengesetzes. Es fehlt nicht an Mitteln und Wegen,sondern
    oaensichtlich an dem
Willen”[20](my italics). (Berner
    TagwachtNo. 271.)

Isuppose these Berlin women workers must have been led astray by the
    “Bakuninist” and “adventurist”,
    “sectarian” (see Kolb and Co.) and
    “reckless” manifesto of the Russian Party’s Central
    Committee, dated November 1.

[1]Inthe
    MS. Lenin wrote “wing” above the word
    “people”.—Ed.

[2]Fateleads
    the willing, but drags the unwilling (Lat.).—Ed.

[3]“Afterthe war [onlyafferthe war?] the class antagonisms
    will become so sharpened that radicalism will gain the upper hand among the
    masses [p. 272]. . . . We are threatened with the flight of the radical
    element from the Party after the war [onlyafterthe war?]
    . . . and with their rushing to join the current of anti-parliamentary [??
    should be: extra-parliamentary] mass action. . . . Thus our Party is divided
    into two extremes which have nothing in
    common.”—Ed.

[4]Streetadventurism.—Ed.

[5]“Hewarned the group not to test the patience of the masses too far, as
    opposition is growing among the masses against the group’s tactics;
    one must remain with the Marxist Centre.” (The Class Struggle
    Against the War! Material on the Liebknecht Case.Published as a
    manuscript, p. 67).—Ed.

[6]SeeEngels’s letters to F. A. Serge of January 18 and November 11,
    1893.
—Lenin

[7]“Theproblem of internationalising the labour movement is not identical with the
    guestion of revolutionising the forms and methods of our
    struggle” (p. 37) and that “the gist of the problem of
    internationalising the proletarian movement for freedom lies in the future
    development and internationalisation of everyday practices [p. 40]
    . . .for instance, labour protection and insurance legislation
    must become the object of their [workers’]internationalaction and organisations” (p. 39).—Ed.

[8]willmeet
    (the governments in case of a war danger) “with the release of a
    revolutionary storm . . . the inauguration of the socialist
    revolution”.—Ed.

[9]“quitein the Kautsky spirit”.—Ed.

[10]“Revolutionarymass action”—such tactics
    “would have a certain justification if we were immediately on the eve
    of a social revolution in the very same way, for instance, as, was the case
    in Russia beginning with the student demonstrations of 1901, which were the
    forerunners of approaching decisive battles against
    absolutism”.—Ed.

[11]“proclaimsthe approaching decisive
    battles”.—Ed.

[12]“Itwould be madness to wish to turn the world war into a civil
    war.”—Ed.

[13]Social-Democracyin the World War.—Ed.

[14]“Howeverdifficult such a transformation may seem at any given moment,
    socialists will never relinquishsystematic,persistent,
    and undeviating preparatory work in this direction, once war has become a
    fact.”—Ed.

[15]“aclass truce”.—Ed.

[16]Thepage
    breaks off here. Several words are missing from the beginning of the next
    page of the manuscript. This is the first publication of the continuation of
    the article.—Ed.

[17]“theeve”.—Ed.

[18]“decisivebattles”.—Ed.

[19]“TheRussian tactics”. Chapter 8 in David’s
    book.—Ed.

[20]“Today,with the existence of a big machine of organisation it would
    be far easier to distributeillegal leaflets and pamphletsand to
    holdbanned meetingsthan it was during the Anti-Socialist
    Law. There is no shortage of means and methods, but there seems to be a lack
    of determination.”—Ed.

[21]SeeNote 90.

[22]SeeEngels’s letters to F. A. Sorge of January 18 and November 11, 1893.